Political good will

With such a short space between the announcement of election results and Christmas, the usual ferment of the season took on an additional frenzied quality. It was accompanied by a sense of relief that the elections and the accompanying tensions were over, and people could feel free to turn their undivided attention to the observances and celebrations associated with the country’s largest annual festival. Like the electorate, perhaps the politicians too are exhausted, and are relieved to take a break from the endless polemic.

But maybe in the more benign atmosphere of this period, they would find time to ponder privately what the electorate has said to them, and how they can go about translating that communication into a workable arrangement. The problem is our politicians are not accustomed to negotiating compromises; rancorous exchanges come more within the boundaries of their experience.  But the voters sent them a message on November 28, and it would be a mistake for them to ignore it and a tragedy for the country if they did so.

And there are signs all around that there are those hovering on the perimeters who would like to ignore the electorate or who have misheard or elect to misinterpret what was conveyed.  So what is the message at its most basic? One party campaigned on its record and promised more of the same; the critical feature of this is that it involves one-party rule and no accommodations (or very minimal ones) with the opposition. While they secured a plurality of the votes (48.6%), they did not, however, secure a majority, which means that most Guyanese (admittedly by a small margin) who went into the polling booth rejected their vision. The next largest party campaigned on a platform of a national unity government, but since only 40.8% of the electorate voted for them, their vision too was rejected by the majority of the electorate.  And while the third party had the smallest share of the vote, their 10% nevertheless potentially puts them in a position of holding the balance.

So while one-party government and a national unity government appear to have been rejected by the voters in this election, given the composition of the National Assembly, one can conclude that at least they would like to see co-operation between the parliamentary parties, since in this situation that is the only way anything will get done. And the less we hear the buzz words, ‘shared governance’ or ‘national unity government’ probably the better; what is important at this stage is actual accommodations, not the labels they carry and not some novel constitutional framework which is unlikely to be agreed at this time and will only become a source of friction. There is a proper time for everything, and it may be that at some point down the road this is an objective which will become desirable and should be pursued, but at this stage the politicians on all sides need a heavy dose of realism. They should, for example, hold in abeyance or modify for the duration some of their pet theories, and above all they should seek to cultivate the art of the possible. A national unity government is about distributing the perks of power, but it by no means should be assumed that improved governance will of necessity flow from it in all circumstances. And improved governance is what this next parliament should be all about as a first step.

The second thing is that the fewer high decibel pronouncements which are made, the better. There are all kinds of sensitivities involved here, and abrasive statements imputing underhand motives to the other side are not just counter-productive, but potentially can aggravate relations unnecessarily when there is a premium on building some measure of trust. The politicians need both their ears: one to listen very carefully to what the other parties are saying, and one to be deaf to the tendentious polemic which is the speciality of our political universe. Ideally, the silly political games which the politicians here are so adept at, should be avoided, and one hopes that everyone will at least attempt some precision in communication and eschew the ad hominem attacks.

The election is over, there is a new executive and legislature, and citizens should not have to be exposed to a constant rehash of campaign-style accusations; what they want to hear about is what the new arrangements which they have put in place in outline are going to deliver.  There will be endless disagreements to be negotiated, of course, the first one being the matter of the Speaker of the House. As such, the PPP/C statement on the subject, the substance of which was published in our edition yesterday, reflected an unhelpful posture. Of course they will want the post of Speaker, and they have advanced an argument as to why they should have it. Leaving aside the merit or lack of merit of their argument, it should be said that at least they have every right to put it forward. But was it really necessary to go on to accuse the opposition of insincerity in the negotiations? Apart from being inaccurate (the opposition is all too sincere about selecting a Speaker from their own ranks), it is back to the old game of ascribing low motives and then attacking these. Can’t we get a respite from that?

As for APNU, its participation in engagements with the other parties certainly gives the impression it has accepted the general outcome of the elections. It may have problems with specific issues, but can these not be divorced from the matter of the overall result, which by now it should have accepted? It is almost a month since the election was held, and the party does itself no credit when it cannot make public its position. It too needs to cultivate a habit of greater openness, not just with the public, but with its own supporters some of whom went out protesting in the erroneous belief that Mr Granger had won the presidency.

According to Ms Lurlene Nestor, the plan is to continue extra-parliamentary action next year. Exactly why this is necessary, most members of the public have absolutely no idea. Whatever changes are needed in how things are done in government can only be done in Parliament, not outside it. In fact, demonstrations on the street will complicate negotiations, and make it more difficult, not less, for the opposition in the National Assembly – not forgetting that it will also turn off the voters. Protests are for when all else has failed, not for when we haven’t even begun to test the new dispensation.

The PPP/C and the PNC have had a long and difficult history, which will not be overcome overnight, and the AFC could potentially come to play a significant role in negotiating common positions if it is prepared to take a consistently rational, low-key and pragmatic line. In addition, of course, the PPP is still in terms of its structure an old Stalinist party which has enjoyed office for almost twenty years. In a general sense, therefore, it will not be disposed to relinquish control in any area, and elements in the party have already indicated their belief publicly that to make compromises would be to show weakness. It will take time, patience and effort for some of them to adjust their thinking to the new reality. Making compromises, however, is what the electorate has decreed indirectly, and all parties would be betraying the will of the people if they decided to ignore that.

For all of that, President Ramotar himself, it must be said, has been saying the right things and where the budget is concerned, has been proceeding in the right direction. Some critics have complained that he should have chosen a cabinet drawn from all the parties; however, this is not a national unity government, and under the constitution he has the right to appoint cabinet members of his choice. The whole idea now is that they should be held accountable by the legislature. The issue with the cabinet is not that it comprises all PPP/C members, but that it is so lackluster, and includes at least one member whose appointment defies rational explanation.

Before our politicians get down to the serious work of the new year, one hopes that along with the rest of the nation they enjoy their Christmas, and return refreshed and imbued with the spirit of the season – good will, leavened by a bit of pragmatism.